Subject: [Simple] IMDN issue #10: More than one IMDN for an IM

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:19:02 +0100

The draft states:

"The Reporting UAS MUST NOT send more than one final IMDN in response
    to an IMDN request.  That is, once an IMDN has been issued on behalf
    of a recipient, no further IMDNs may be issued on behalf of that
    recipient, even if another disposition is performed on the message.
    For example, if the user reads and then deletes the message, the UAS
    will send a single read notification.  The delete operation in this
    case will not generate an additional IMDN."

I do not agree. I would like to know when the message is delivered, 
then when the message is read and when whatever future state we come up 
with for an IM happens.

Regards,
Hisham

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:18:28 -0500

I'll buy the argument, if we said that every IM generates an IMDN.
Given the scenarios Hisham and Aki have posted, the sender has no way of
knowing whether or not there are intermediaries.  This is why every IM
must request an IMDN, unless the sender does not care.

This issue also says that SIP was the wrong choice for IM transport.
We're hacking hacks on hacks to implement transport layer features.
Yes, it will work to use IMDN for what in the normal SIP world would be
a final response.  Does this pass muster with the Internet architecture,
however?

-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:12 AM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: Simple WG
Subject: Re: [Simple] IMDN issue #10: More than one IMDN for an IM

I dont understand your point here. what ACK for the message? do you 
mean 200 ok?

While 200 ok is transport level delivery, IMDN is user level delivery 
notification. A GW, for example, can generate a 2xx response before it 
has been guaranteed that the final recipient has actually received the 
message.

Hisham

On Jan 30, 2006, at 9:35 PM, Burger, Eric wrote:

> REPORT method tells you the IM was received.
> ACK of the MESSAGE tells you the IM was received.
>
> IMDN is for user-level read, not transport.  This is the distinction
> between user-level (IMDN, MDN) and transport-level (MESSAGE, ACK, SMTP
> DSN) reporting.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf
> Of Hisham Khartabil
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:19 AM
> To: Simple WG
> Subject: [Simple] IMDN issue #10: More than one IMDN for an IM
>
> The draft states:
>